Force a renewed KLAS session cookie to resolve expired authentication. Refresh local cached data by reissuing the session.
KLAS 세션 쿠키를 강제로 재발급받아 로컬 캐시를 갱신합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does say that the local cache will be updated and the session cookie reissued, which is useful, but it omits critical facts such as whether an existing session is invalidated, whether authentication is required beforehand, what happens on failure, and whether server-side side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short, focused sentence delivers exactly the core action — session cookie reissue and local cache refresh — with no filler or redundant explanation. The description is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly sufficient for making the call. However, because no annotations are present, the description still lacks important context about when forced refresh is appropriate and what risks or prerequisites exist, so it is only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool declares zero parameters and an empty input schema with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action on a specific resource: reissuing the KLAS session cookie and refreshing local cache. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all read/list operations, because the verb 'refresh/reissue' and the cookie/cache resource are unique among them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, such as 'when the session is expired' or 'instead of klas_auth_status'. Usage must be inferred from the name 'refresh_session' and the vague 'forcibly reissue' phrasing, with no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.